On August 23, 2013, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to the amount not falling under the scope of prohibition of seizure under Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act among the benefit claims that B holds against the Defendant by Seoul Central District Court 2013TT 26978, based on the authentic copy of the notarial deed of a promissory note with executory force, and was served on the Defendant on August 28, 2013.

【The Defendant asserts that the obligor of the Promissory Notes Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 is not the Defendant, and that the Defendant is not the Defendant.

In the performance suit, the standing to be the defendant in the performance suit is replaced by the plaintiff's own claim, and such judgment is absorptiond into the judgment of the propriety of the claim, so the person alleged as the performance obligor is the legitimate defendant. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion

According to the facts found above, the defendant is obligated to pay the above collection amount of KRW 300 million to the plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff was rendered a separate winning judgment against B on the loans secured as the deed of promissory notes in this case, it is unreasonable to claim the collection amount based on the seizure and collection order, which made the above deed of promissory notes as the title of execution.

However, there are overlapping enforcement titles with respect to the same enforcement claim.

Even if the execution bond is extinguished, the compulsory execution may be made with the seizure and collection order and the claim for the collection money may be made until the execution bond is extinguished.

Since the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 300,000,000 as well as interest.